5 Ways the GOP Is Challenging Elena Kagan

The second day of Elena Kagan's Senate confirmation hearings for the
Supreme Court is showing a bit more fireworks than the somewhat dull
first day. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are fervently
expressing their opposition to Kagan, citing her judicial record, her
philosophy, and her performance at the hearings themselves. Here are
their concerns.

'Progressive' Desire to Change Constitution The New York
Times' Charlie Savage
and Sheryl Gay Stolberg report that Kagan's explanation that parts
of the Constitution "are meant to be interpreted over time" provoked
some GOP ire. "The ranking Republican on the committee, Senator Jeff
Sessions of Alabama, pushed that line of thinking, pressing Ms. Kagan
about what he characterized as a 'progressive' legal view that would
allow judges to 'update the Constitution to make it say whatever they
would like it to say. ... You’re not empowered to alter that document
and change its meaning — you’re empowered to apply its meaning
faithfully in new circumstances, wouldn’t you agree?' Mr. Sessions
said."

'Not Friendly' to Military The Chicago Tribune's Mike Memoli says that Republican
Sen. Jeff Sessions "accused Elena Kagan of treating the U.S. military
in a 'second-class' way during her time as dean of the Harvard Law
School, banning military recruiters from campus because she opposed the
don't ask, don't tell policy. ... [Sessions] accused the nominee of
creating a climate on campus 'that was not friendly to the military.'"

'Not
Rigorously Accurate' on Harvard Record Politico's Manu Raju reports, "Alabama
Sen. Jeff Sessions slammed Elena Kagan's testimony ... Referring to her
explanation about denying military recruiters access to Harvard Law
School's facilities, the Republican said: 'The overall picture that she
portrayed of the situation seems to me to be disconnected to the
reality. ... I believe that's a serious matter.' Asked if she was being
intellectually dishonest, Sessions said: 'I feel like she was not
rigorously accurate. There's not two truths about what happened at
Harvard, there's one'"

Just Too Ideologically Liberal ABC
News' Devin Dwyer writes, "Kagan's
attempt to cast herself as an open-minded consensus-builder may not
easily sway some Republicans who warn she would be a justice whose
liberal political views will influence her decisions. ... Sen. Lindsay
Graham, R-S.C., said he believes Kagan is qualified, but wanted
reassurances that her role in liberal causes will be "parked at the
door" if she enters the court."

Going After 'Empathy' Talking
Points Memo's Andrew Pincus says Republicans
have renewed their line from the Sotomayor hearings. "Senator Jon Kyl,
one of the most adept questioners on the Judiciary Committee, takes
Kagan through a series of issues relating to her approach to judging. He
begins by asking about the President's famous comment of last year that
judges should have 'empathy.' Rather than rejecting the idea, Kagan
explains what she would do. She says that a judge's job is to consider
fully each party's argument, and in particular to understand completely
how the facts and legal issues look from each party's perspective--but
then to apply the law."

News reports are focusing on the Germanwings pilot's possible depression, following a familiar script in the wake of mass killings. But the evidence shows violence is extremely rare among the mentally ill.